It doesn't matter what I think in that context. You were giving a reason for why dualism fails, but you only attacked certain schools of dualism. I think the immaterial can influence the material. I don't see why I'd need to know how this happens if I can justify that it does.

But you can't justify that it does.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(02-02-2017 01:35 PM)Chas Wrote: What you said was "The creator was not created so it needs no creator. The creator is the necessary being."

That is special pleading.

It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. This is not special pleading.

You have invented a 'necessary being'. Is it because you just have to have an answer, even one that is made up?

There is no justification for a necessary being. And inventing one to plug a hole is special pleading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(02-02-2017 02:09 PM)TheInquisition Wrote: A claim about the universe for which you have zero evidence and a claim about a being which you have no evidence.

You can wank to William Lane Craig's sophistry, but you still have zero evidence, just another silly argument.

What claim about the universe are you referring to? I have evidence for the necessary being. I use a collection of refined cosmological arguments. And Craig is an intelligent person. How are his arguments are sophistry?

An argument is not evidence - it is just an argument.

And Craig is a buffoon in debate. He just spouts his dreary arguments and does not engage his opponent.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(02-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote: What claim about the universe are you referring to? I have evidence for the necessary being. I use a collection of refined cosmological arguments. And Craig is an intelligent person. How are his arguments are sophistry?

An argument is not evidence - it is just an argument.

And Craig is a buffoon in debate. He just spouts his dreary arguments and does not engage his opponent.

An argument for the existence of something can be used as evidence for it. Scientific evidence only gets you so far. Science can't be applied to everything.

(02-02-2017 03:48 PM)Full Circle Wrote: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a necessary being.
Ergo the universe was created by TFSM.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Space and time didn't exist. It can't be spaghetti.

Seriously? Is that you Donald?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce